Re: the relational model of data objects *and* program objects
From: Kenneth Downs <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:09:31 -0400
Message-Id: <oqevi2-9q7.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net>
> conformance, but
> valuable
> its
>
> Please explain: how does normalization require a database to be
> incomplete, missing data? If you mean the relationships between data
> in tables/relations, then that is what referential integrity
> constraints are for!
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:09:31 -0400
Message-Id: <oqevi2-9q7.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net>
Tony Andrews wrote:
>> The relational model is permanently hobbled by normalization.
> Normalization
>> provides an astoundingly simple and powerful way to pursue
> conformance, but
>> it has nothing to offer in the area of *completeness*. A normalized >> database is required to be incomplete, to be missing data that is
> valuable
>> to the computer's human masters, data that would serve them well by
> its
>> existence and which causes confusion and expense by its absence.
>
> Please explain: how does normalization require a database to be
> incomplete, missing data? If you mean the relationships between data
> in tables/relations, then that is what referential integrity
> constraints are for!
A column like extended=price*qty violates 3rd normal form and "does not belong", hence my comment later in my post that pure database theorists will throw away data to preserve a theory.
A useful database will contain data that goes beyond normalization into automation. What interested me in the OP was my own question: what theory guides the definition, generation, and protection of automoated data?
-- Kenneth Downs Secure Data Software, Inc. (Ken)nneth_at_(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)Received on Wed Apr 13 2005 - 14:09:31 CEST